- Vaclav Smil on climate change: "No global warming in past ten years"
- Ian Plimer, ABC and the lie that won't go away
- An email exchange with Mojib Latif
- Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight
- GMU contradictory decisions on Wegman: Plagiarism in CSDA, but not in 2006 congressional report
- James Gentle and Karen Kafadar take over at WIREs Computational Statistics
- Open thread, March 2013: Muzzling of Canadian Scientists, IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, Heartland’s Jay Lehr 1980s fraud conviction
- 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, part 3: Arctic sea ice death spiral continues
- Richard Muller Radio Rambles, part 1: Kochs “very deep”, “very thoughtful” and “properly skeptical”
- Open Thread, September 2012
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- October 2008
Funding Highlights [added May 31]:
Both the Fraser Institute and the Pembina Institute have some reliance on foreign funding (about 15%). Both organizations rely on foundations for more than half their funding; Fraser enjoys more corporate support, while Pembina has more funding and research contracts from government and other NGOs. In general, Pembina is much more transparent concerning individual funding sources than Fraser.
Nevertheless, this investigation reveals that the oil and gas industry funding plays a much bigger role in the Fraser Institute’s budget than previously realized. Previously unreported cumulative funding from Encana stands at about $1 million; founding CEO Gwyn Morgan gave an additional $1 million, for a total of $2 million. Other important donors have included the Koch brothers ($523,000) and Exxon-Mobil ($120,000), along with significant but unreported regular donations by an unidentified Canadian Koch subsidiary and Exxon-Mobil subsidiary Imperial Oil. There is also circumstantial evidence pointing to support by Keystone XL proponent TransCanada and oil sands operator Canadian Natural Resources. Meanwhile, Pembina has transparently reported support from Suncor (and formerly TransCanada).
This is the second in an ongoing series comparing and contrasting two prominent Canadian think tanks, namely the libertarian and Conservative-friendly Fraser Institute and the environmentally focused Pembina Institute. This follows Part 1, Introduction and Background; subsequent sections cover Funding Transparency, Research Quality, Political Dimensions and Conclusions & Recommendations.
SECTION 2: FUNDING
- Summary of Findings
- Breakdown of Funding Sources
- Foreign Funding
- Oil and Gas Company Funding
Funding Breakdown: Fraser has a little more than double the revenue of Pembina ($10.8 M vs $4.8 M). Both Fraser (54%) and Pembina (77%) derive more than half their donation revenue from foundations. Fraser also relies considerably more on the corporate sector for donations than Pembina (34% vs 7%). However, Pembina derives half its income from consulting fees, mainly with corporations, as well as other non-profits and governments, thus implying a higher corporate share of Pembina’s overall revenues.
Foreign Funding: Fraser and Pembina appear to have a similar level of foreign funding, about one-sixth of total revenue, based on 2010 tax returns and annual reports.
Oil and Gas company funding: Specific corporate or foundation sponsors, whether foreign or Canadian, are harder to identify in the case of the Fraser Institute, whose lack of transparency stands in sharp contrast to the openness of Pembina.
Nevertheless, Fraser’s major oil and gas company sponsor can now be identified for the first time. Canadian oil and gas giant Encana has donated about $1 million to Fraser’s coffers since 2002, along with an additional $1 million gift from Encana’s founding CEO (and early Harper suporter) Gwyn Morgan, for a combined total of about $2 million.
U.S. based Koch foundations and are in second place and rising fast, having donated a total of $500,000 from 2007 to 2010. In addition, there were regular undisclosed contributions from an unnamed Koch Canadian subsidiary “years and years” before that.
Other oil industry companies associated with Fraser are ExxonMobil, ExxonMobil subsidiary Imperial Oil, and Keystone XL lead proponent TransCanada Corporation (also a former supporter of the Pembina Institute). ExxonMobil donated $120,000 in 2003-2004. The amount and timing of Imperial contributions to Fraser remain unknown. There is strong circumstantial evidence of TransCanada support for Fraser, but no direct evidence or admission of funding, let alone amounts or timing.
The following table summarizes current knowledge of oil and gas industry funding of the Fraser Institute.
|Encana__________________ Morgan-Trottier Foundation Encana/Gwyn Morgan Total||$75,000 * N/A___ ______||$1,073,286 * $1,000,000 $2,073,286|
|Koch Foundations ____________ Koch Cdn. subsidiaries||$150,000 None||$523,221 Unreported|
|Exxon-Mobil_______________ Imperial Oil||None Unreported||$120,000 Unreported|
|TransCanada Corporation **||TBD||TBD|
|Canadian Natural Resources **||TBD||TBD|
* Previously undisclosed Encana support given in response to author inquiries.
** Circumstantial evidence for support, without official confirmation as yet.
Suncor Energy, now Canada’s largest oil and gas company, is a long time supporter of Pembina, donating in five figures most years, as well as contracting for various consultant services.
This is the first in a series comparing and contrasting two prominent Canadian think tanks, namely the Fraser Institute and the Pembina Institute. The projected table of contents is given below with the current Introduction and Background section highlighted and broken down into sub-sections. Links to subsequent sections will be enabled as they become available.
- INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
- Funding Transparency
- Research Quality
- Political Influence
- Conclusion and Recommendations
[Note: Since this page is primarily intended as background and reference material for those readers less familiar with Fraser and Pembina, comments have been disabled.]
Many of you no doubt noticed that there have been no new posts in some time; in fact, there was not a single post in April. Let me assure you that May will be different, starting with a brand new open thread.
To get the ball rolling, here are a few stories that caught my eye recently.
- Environment-energy policy analyst Mark Jaccard and a dozen other protesters were arrested in southern British Columbia following a blockade of trains delivering U.S. coal to the port of Delta.
- Margaret Munro of PostMedia reported that “government media minders” had been sent to an international polar conference to “monitor and record” Canadian scientists’ interactions with media, an initiative described as attempts to “muzzle” and “intimidate” the scientists. (This story was also also covered by the CBC).
- Alexis Stoymenoff of the Vancouver Observer reported that Koch foundations gave a further $150,000 to the Fraser Institute in 2010. Greenpeace and others had previously noted donations of more than $350,000 up to 2009, bringing the total Koch contribution to Fraser to $500,000. There is no word yet if this funding of a radical libertarian group by foreign special interests will be investigated by the authorities. Meanwhile, environment minister Peter Kent ratcheted up the Harper government’s attacks on environmental NGOs even further, accusing them of “money laundering”.
- The Guardian reported that the Heartland Institute put up the first in a planned series of billboards comparing believers in global warming to mass murderers, terrorists and tyrants, but was forced to pull it down within 24 hours after even their own supporters and sponsors objected.
- And, finally, Steve McIntyre has broken his recent silence to renew his attacks on CRU paleoclimatolists, accusing them of making “untruthful or deceptive” statements concerning Yamal and related tree-ring chronologies. He even went so far as to accuse Briffa et al of withholding an expanded Yamal-Urals regional “composite” from publication because it was not “in accordance” with “previous results”.
I had thought the saga of climate science critic Edward Wegman and the various allegations of misconduct in his recent work could not possibly get any more bizarre, especially in the wake of manifestly contradictory findings in two recently concluded investigations at George Mason University.
But in a shocking new development, it turns out that two problematic overview articles by Wegman and his protege and congressional report co-author Yasmin Said in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics (WIREs CS), have been completely revised. Those revisions saw the removal or rewriting of massive swathes of copy-and-paste scholarship, as well as correction of many errors identified by myself and others. In each case, the comprehensive revisions came “at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the Publisher”, following complaints to Wiley alleging wholesale plagiarism. But Wegman and Said also happen to be two of the three chief editors of WIREs CompStat, thus raising compelling concerns of conflict of interest, to say the least.
In fact, it is very clear that Wiley’s own process for handling misconduct cases was egregiously abused in favour of a face-saving “redo” manoeuvre. And this latest episode raises disturbing new questions about the role of the third WIREs CS editor-in-chief (and “hockey stick” congressional report co-author) David Scott, and indeed Wiley management itself, in enabling the serial misconduct of Wegman and Said.
There has been renewed scrutiny of climate contrarian PR specialist Tom Harris in the wake of a highly critical report on a controversial course Harris taught at Carleton University, most recently in 2011. Much of the current interest in Harris has naturally focused on his involvement with the Heartland Institute, itself very much in the news following the leak of detailed budget and fundraising plans (accompanied by a suspect two-page strategy memo).
Today I’ll take a close look at the beginning of the Harris-Heartland connection in 2007, based on Heartland’s publicly available 2007 tax declaration and December 2007 press releases, as well as the illuminating full recorded interview of Harris by Suzanne Goldberg of the Guardian. Taken together, these provide compelling evidence that Heartland funded Tom Harris’s Natural Resource Stewardship Project right around the time that Harris was organizing the Bali contrarian petition attacking climate science, part of a broader attempt by Heartland to disrupt the December 2007 UNFCCC conference.
National Post financial editor Terence Corcoran essentially provided Harris the sole (but very powerful) PR channel for the petition, while hiding Harris’s involvement, a fact that the Post has never publicly acknowledged to this day. Now that it turns out that the effort was likely funded by the Heartland Institute, the Post’s credibility has been compromised even further.
Some possible topics that have come up in other threads:
1) CASS has issued a critique of Tom Harris‘s Carleton University climate change course (press release and full report), detailing “142 erroneous and fully-quoted claims”. This was covered by the Guardian (Suzanne Goldenberg), Post Media (Mike de Souza) and CBC. [h/t Holly Stick]
2) The Virginia Supreme Court has shot down Ken Cuccinelli’s CID fishing expedition seeking a broad swathe of material from Michael Mann’s time at University of Virginia. [The NCSE account and analysis of this development is now online – h/t Snapple]. Presumably, the focus will now be on the American Tradition Institute’s abusive efforts to get their hands on all of Mann’s UVa emails (as I recall they already have been given those they were entitled to). [h/t Rattus Norvegicus]
3) James Annan weighs in on Peter Gleick (and adds more in comments, expressing doubts about Gleick’s story concerning the Climate Strategy document. ).[h/t Gryposaurus with some replies as well (but that thread is really, really long now).]
Or anything else that comes up …